That is the second time that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has used the word ““bossy”” today. It is clearly going to be his word of the day.
There is very little between the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and us on this. I agree that it is very important that the commission conducts its affairs in the public interest. Indeed, the Cabinet Office guidance which I looked at is very clear that while non-departmental public bodies operate independently of government, Ministers remain accountable to Parliament for the public money spent by and on them. The money is a critical part of this. The commission is also accountable to the public for the service that it provides.
The noble Baroness will also know that the chief executive of the commission will be the chief accounting officer, as is normal practice. He or she will be required to prepare a statement of account each year. In that way the commission will be under the scrutiny of the National Audit Office and the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee. All of that is very important in the use of public money and in the concept at the beginning of the amendment, which is about operating in the public interest.
We have already talked about independence several times today, and it dominated our proceedings the other day in Committee. I agree with a lot of what is being said about the relationship between the commission and the Government. We do not want the commission to be a creature of any government, nor do we want Secretaries of State breathing down the neck of the commission with—I loved this idea—memos and e-mails.
So we are trying within the Bill to get this right and to make sure that that relationship is appropriate. As the noble Baroness said, we shall come later to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the relationship of the Secretary of State.
Without pre-empting our later discussions, ““getting it right”” means that there is a relationship between the Secretary of State, as accountable to Parliament, between the commission, between the public money, and ensuring that with serious major issues where the commission could be involved, that that relationship is right too. So I do not want to rule out the relationship at all; I want to make sure that it is in the right place.
I hope, on the basis of what I have said about the relationship of non-departmental public bodies to money and the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, that I have reassured the noble Baroness about the public interest. We will talk further about independence. I would simply say to the noble Baroness that I think the amendment is unnecessary, because I believe that the way the commission operates, as we have set it out, would guarantee that element of public interest. Of course we will talk further about independence.
Equality Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 11 July 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Equality Bill (HL).
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c896-7 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:55:55 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261198
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261198
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261198